Council cites zoning standards, downtown retail policy as factors in 5–0 vote
The Wayzata City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to deny a request to further reduce required ground-floor retail space at 401 Lake Street East, affirming a recommendation from the Planning Commission and reinforcing long-standing retail policies for the downtown core.
The application, submitted by Studio BV on behalf of property owner Fish Base LLC, sought a variance to reduce required retail frontage and area along Lake Street from 22 percent—already lowered by a 2020 variance—to approximately 11 percent. The proposal would have allowed part of the existing Brick + Linen retail space to be converted into a conference room for the building’s third-floor office user.
File photo.
The property sits at the northeast corner of Lake Street and Manitoba Avenue, directly across from the Wayzata Depot to the south and Five Swans to the west. It is zoned C-4 Central Business District, where city code requires at least 50 percent of ground-floor frontage and area along Lake Street to be devoted to retail or service commercial uses.
Planning Commission recommendation
The Planning Commission reviewed the request in November and, on Dec. 1, adopted findings recommending denial. Commissioners concluded the applicant had not demonstrated the “practical difficulties” required for a variance under state law and city code, and that a further reduction in retail space would be inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and the intent of Lake Street as a retail-oriented corridor.
Applicant explanation
During the council meeting, Mayor Andrew Mullin asked the applicant to explain what was driving the request. Aaron Foley, representing Fish Base LLC, said the ground-floor retail tenant has a lease running through 2029 but has struggled to make the retail component work. Foley said the proposal was intended to provide some relief to the tenant while allowing time to explore subleasing options, and to accommodate expansion needs for the office use on the third floor.
Foley confirmed there had been no additional sublease activity since the Planning Commission meeting, noting the tenant was waiting on the council’s final decision before moving forward.
Council discussion
Council members expressed empathy for the challenges facing downtown retailers, while repeatedly returning to the legal standards governing variances.
Councilmember Molly MacDonald said she supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation, citing its focus on maintaining retail in the downtown core. “I was really heartened to see and observe the Planning Commission’s commitment to retail in our downtown,” MacDonald said. “I support their findings and their recommendation for this application.”
Councilmember Dan Koch said he “struggled with this one,” noting the city’s history of allowing some flexibility in retail requirements for other Lake Street developments and his concern about vacant storefronts. However, he said the building had already received concessions at the time of approval and said he would respect the commission’s findings and support denial.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen agreed, describing the request as “a variance to a variance” and emphasizing the cumulative effect of repeated reductions in retail space. Sorensen acknowledged that vacant retail is a significant downtown issue, but said the broader challenge should be addressed separately from the application before the council.
Councilmember Alex Plechash called the situation unfortunate and said resizing the retail space could benefit both the tenant and the property owner without materially changing the building’s character. Still, he said the request did not meet the city’s code requirements and highlighted the need for a future policy discussion about requiring retail in locations where it may not function well.
Mayor Mullin said the variance criteria made approval difficult. “If you just look at the standard of variance, it’s hard to find the criteria that would support it,” Mullin said.
Mullin also pointed to rising commercial property taxes and operating costs as a growing pressure on downtown retailers, noting that Wayzata businesses are competing with regional shopping centers offering lower rents and higher traffic. He said the city should convene stakeholders to explore tools it can control—such as zoning definitions, potential tax relief, or other policy adjustments—to better support downtown retail over the long term.
Vote and next steps
After discussion, the council adopted Resolution 46-2025 denying the variance by a 5–0 vote.
While the decision leaves the existing retail requirements in place at 401 Lake Street East, several council members signaled interest in revisiting downtown retail policy more broadly in future workshops, separate from the variance process.
Community Development Director Sharpe details why modern housing standards require deeper remediation than the 1990s office use; Plechash casts the lone dissenting vote
WAYZATA — On December 2, 2025, the Wayzata City Council voted 4–1 to adopt Resolution 45-2025, formally supporting a private application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) for the cleanup of 200 Lake Street East. The measure advances a request for $1,772,590 in environmental remediation funding for the downtown redevelopment site. Councilmember Alex Plechash voted against the resolution.
The applicant, 200 Lake St. LLC on behalf of Lake West Development, LLC, has completed extensive environmental investigation work and received MPCA approval of a Response Action Plan, which outlines excavation of contaminated soils and placement of clean fill to establish a protective barrier across the property. According to the city’s agenda materials, the contamination stems from historic petroleum uses and other legacy industrial activity at the site.
Why contamination remains despite earlier cleanup
During the meeting, Community Development Director Alex Sharpe explained why the site was only partially remediated when the existing TCF building was constructed in 1990. Cleanup at that time was limited to the building footprint, leaving contamination beneath the asphalt parking areas undisturbed under the environmental standards of that era.
Sharpe stated: “The first being that they did some remediation underneath the existing building that’s present. The majority of the additional contamination was underneath the parking lots that were sealed with asphalt. Additionally, when you’re putting housing on the top of contaminated sites, you have a greater responsibility for remediation than what you do for an office or business environment.”
Housing now proposed for the site triggers modern, more rigorous cleanup requirements, which the ERF grant would help fund.
A large request within the county’s program
Sharpe noted that the nearly $1.8 million request would be one of the largest awards Hennepin County has issuedthrough its Environmental Response Fund, where even major grants often fall between $600,000 and $700,000. He added that the city has no financial obligation tied to this application, as funds would flow directly from the county to the applicant.
A separate state environmental grant is anticipated in 2026, for which the city may serve as the required applicant.
Clarifying the “missing attachment”
Council questions also focused on why the private ERF application referenced a city resolution that had not yet been approved. Sharpe explained that the placeholder language is common in private submissions and that the resolution adopted at this meeting would become the attachment referenced in the application.
Final action
After discussion, the council voted 4–1 to approve Resolution 45-2025, with Councilmember Alex Plechash voting no. The vote affirms the city’s support for pursuing outside funding to complete environmental cleanup ahead of further design and development steps tied to the project’s previously approved PUD concept under Resolution 13-2025.
WAYZATA, Minn. (Dec. 2025) — After holding its annual Truth-in-Taxation hearing, the Wayzata City Council voted to adopt the 2026 final property tax levy and budget, closing out a months-long process that balances rising service demands with a continued commitment to fiscal restraint.
The Council approved Resolution 53-2025, certifying a final levy of $7,241,697, and Resolution 54-2025, establishing a total 2026 budget of $23,120,220. The action reduces the levy increase from the 7.5% reflected on residents’ preliminary notices down to 4.9%, a notable adjustment achieved through targeted refinements to the General Fund levy.
A Budget Shaped by Public Safety and Long-Range Planning
Staff walked the Council through the full financial landscape for the year ahead, beginning with the General Fund — the City’s primary operating account. Public safety remains Wayzata’s largest budget category, reflecting the community’s long-standing priority of maintaining a safe, responsive, and well-trained department. General government, public works, parks and recreation, community development, and fire services round out the remaining shares of the operational budget.
The City’s enterprise and special revenue funds — including water, sewer, stormwater, solid waste, motor vehicle services, liquor operations, cable TV, the cemetery, and the Wayzata Arena — were also reviewed. Together, these funds make up more than half of the City’s financial activity and are supported by user fees rather than property taxes. The combined liquor operations, one of Wayzata’s largest enterprise funds, continue to play a major role in supporting city services.
When all funds are combined, the 2026 total budget stands at $23.1 million, with the General Fund comprising nearly half.
Key Drivers Behind the 4.9% Levy Increase
Several factors shaped the final levy:
Addition of a full-time Fire Chief, scheduled to begin in the second quarter of 2026
Cost-of-living wage adjustments for city staff
Market-based pay adjustments for police officers to ensure competitive recruitment and retention
These investments align with the City’s strategic priorities: strengthening public safety staffing, advancing initiatives from the 2024–2026 Strategic Plan, and maintaining service levels without overburdening residents.
Staff also provided regional comparisons showing that Wayzata’s 4.9% levy increase is well below preliminary increases adopted by many Lake Minnetonka-area communities. With a 2026 projected tax rate of 19.6%, Wayzata continues to track lower than most peer cities — a point of pride for a community committed to careful financial stewardship.
Property tax distribution data further shows that only a portion of a resident’s total bill supports city operations, with schools, Hennepin County, and other jurisdictions making up the majority of the average tax payment.
Council Comments
Mayor Andrew Mullin opened the discussion by encouraging residents to stay engaged in the upcoming school district referendum. “I want residents aware of it and tune into it,” he said, noting that the proposed measure carries a direct financial impact. “If that levy is approved, the implication to it is $303 for every $650,000 of home value.” Mullin emphasized that he was not taking a position for or against the referendum, adding that his goal was simply to ensure residents had clear information as they evaluate the proposal. “The 4% preliminary looks nice, except when you look at a half billion dollar referendum… I’m just trying to provide information.”
Mullin explained why he would not support the final levy. “I’m gonna vote no on this tonight and I wanted to state my reasons,” he said. While he commended staff for reducing the projected levy from 14.5% to 4.9%, he pointed to external forces driving unusually high tax pressures across Hennepin County. “There’s some unique circumstances going on… pushing a significant burden to our property tax,” he said, noting that Wayzata saw an average 22.1% increase in property valuations — the highest in the county — while parts of the east metro experienced commercial decline. “It’s a double-edged sword…” he said, citing examples of property tax bills rising 10%, 25%, even 48% in a single year. He added that “we need to work harder to control what we can control” and said he “would have preferred to see a number in the threes versus 4.9.”
Councilmember Dan Koch offered a clarification during the budget discussion, noting that one of the reductions used to reach the 4.9% levy increase involved a proposed position—not an existing one. “I just want to make a point of clarification that we are not cutting an existing community service officer,” he said. Koch explained that the budget initially included a new CSO position, but after receiving input regarding operational needs and management considerations, the City chose not to move forward with adding the fourth role. “We’re just not increasing that,” he said. “We’ll maintain our three community service officers.”
Councilmember Alex Plechash underscored the significance of the work that went into lowering the levy during the Truth-in-Taxation process. “We’re about to approve a 4.9% increase, but I’d like the viewing audience to realize what went into that is that we still invested very well into public safety, in police, in fire, in our city staff, and we didn’t shortcut that at all,” he said. Plechash noted that the preliminary levy “initially started at 14.5%, something like that,” and emphasized that the City’s final number reflects substantial refinement without compromising essential services. “We were able to get that down to 4.9% and still not sacrificing public safety,” he said.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen reflected on the broader financial approach that shaped this year’s budget process, noting the value of the City’s longstanding fiscal discipline. “I think our overall strategy and a little conservatism has played well with this city and I think we are continuing now to be a little more aggressive with it,” he said. Sorensen added that his perspective on the 2026 budget was positive, emphasizing the collaborative effort behind it. “Overall I think my comments are generally complimentary to this team and the staff about the process we’ve been through this year.”
Next Steps: Capital Projects on Deck
With the operating budget and levy now finalized, the Council will turn its attention to the 2026–2035 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) at its December 16 meeting. The CIP outlines long-term investments in streets, utilities, parks, buildings, and major equipment — the infrastructure that shapes Wayzata’s future.
The Wayzata City Council has sent a formal letter to Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty expressing opposition to a new county policy that limits prosecution of cases arising from what are deemed non-public-safety traffic stops.
The letter, signed by Mayor Andrew Mullin and Council Members Dan Koch, Molly MacDonald, Alex Plechash,and Ken Sorensen, was transmitted October 14 by Interim City Manager Aurora Yager. It warns that the policy change could undermine local public safety and was developed “without any meaningful collaboration or conversation with local law enforcement agencies.”
In a public post shared Tuesday, Mayor Mullin echoed the Council’s concerns and voiced support for Wayzata Police Chief Jamie Baker and neighboring departments.
“The City of Wayzata has serious concerns about this policy,” Mullin wrote. “We believe this change will negatively impact our public safety practices and, most importantly, your safety here in Wayzata.”
Mullin said the city’s objections center on three main points: a lack of collaboration with local police; the unintended consequences of restricting enforcement tools; and the need to align reform goals with “the operational realities and specific needs of cities like Wayzata.”
The policy, effective October 15, directs county prosecutors to “prioritize charging offenses that arise from traffic stops that focus on public safety.” Under the new framework, cases that stem from stops for minor equipment or registration violations—such as expired tabs, a broken headlight, or an obstructed license plate—will generally not be prosecuted unless the stop involves a substantial and immediate risk to public safety.
In its letter, the Wayzata City Council said traffic stops serve multiple purposes beyond issuing citations and should not be curtailed without careful study.
“Traffic stops serve multiple public safety functions,” the letter states. “Any policy that restricts them should be developed through careful analysis and input from those with on-the-ground expertise.”
The Council emphasized that while it supports fair and equitable enforcement, meaningful change requires joint decision-making between prosecutors and the officers who enforce the law.
“Public safety is not an issue that can be effectively addressed in isolation,” the Council wrote. “Better outcomes are achieved when policy development includes those who will implement the policies and live with their consequences.”
Yager, in her accompanying message to Moriarty, invited dialogue:
“Should you or your staff have any questions of Wayzata, please do not hesitate to reach out and we would be happy to discuss this more.”
The County Attorney’s Office has said the new policy is intended to build public trust and focus limited resources on cases that most directly impact safety, such as speeding, impaired driving, and reckless behavior. Exceptions to the non-charging rule will be reviewed “on a case-by-case basis in circumstances that endanger public safety.”
Wayzata joins a growing number of suburban cities expressing unease about the countywide change, which affects all police departments that rely on Hennepin County for criminal prosecution.
Policy at a Glance: What Counts as a “Non-Public-Safety” Traffic Stop
(Effective October 15, 2025 — Hennepin County Attorney’s Office)
The County Attorney’s Office will presumptively not charge cases that result from stops based solely on the following minor violations unless a clear safety threat exists:
Expired or missing registration tabs
Failure to illuminate license plate
Frame or rim obscuring license plate
One broken headlight, brake light, or taillight
One missing sideview mirror
Rearview mirror obstruction or dangling item
Nonfunctional windshield wipers
Failure to signal when not creating a hazard
Cracked windshield that doesn’t obstruct view
Window tint darker than legal limit, unless unsafe
Sarah Kaelberer, Mark Rue, Steve Youngstedt, and Andy Mullin.
At the October 7 Wayzata City Council meeting, Sarah Kaelberer of Business and Estate Advisors, representing the Wayzata West Metro Chamber of Commerce, presented the Exceptional Customer Service Award to Youngstedt’s in recognition of their long-standing commitment to local patrons and community service.
Kaelberer shared excerpts from customer nominations that highlighted the family-owned business’s trusted reputation. “One customer said these guys have kept their 2006 Toyota running—why you’d admit that to someone, I don’t know, but they were very proud of it,” she said with a smile. Another patron noted having six different vehicles serviced over the years, all with Youngstedt’s.
Accepting the award were Mark Rue and Steve Youngstedt, representing a business that has operated in Wayzata for more than four decades. Mayor Mullin noted that the shop is not only known for quality automotive care but also for its civic spirit—often among the first to sponsor local events and lend support to community causes.
Mark Rue, Sarah Kaelberer, & Steve Youngstedt,
Rue drew a laugh from the crowd when he acknowledged that “you don’t necessarily want to be at Youngstedt’s,” since a visit usually means something’s wrong with your car—but he said that’s exactly why they focus on taking care of people. “We’re here to help when you need it,” he said, emphasizing that trust, familiarity, and a personal touch are what turn a stressful situation into a positive experience.
Mark Rue.
Following applause from the audience, the council paused for a group photo with the recipients before proceeding with the evening’s agenda.
Interim City Manager Mike Kelly administers the oath of office to newly appointed Council Member Dan Koch during the Wayzata City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 7. Koch was appointed to fill the vacancy left by Jeff Parkhill, who resigned after announcing plans to move out of state.
Wayzata Staff and Council review the selections for the Wayzata Bar & Grill.
The Wayzata City Council held a workshop Tuesday evening to review progress on the Wayzata Bar & Grill interior remodel—better known to locals as the Muni. The discussion focused on refining the project’s budget and scope, preparing for bid authorization, and confronting the long-standing HVAC and moisture problems that have challenged the building for years.
Interim City Manager Mike Kelly led the update alongside Bar and Grill Manager Jeff Pietrini and representatives from Mohagen Hansen Architectural Group, who presented updates on design documents, scheduling, and cost projections.
The latest estimate places the interior remodel at approximately $468,000, which includes design, finishes, and new furnishings such as booths, tables, and chairs. With contingencies and related improvements, the total project could near $650,000.
However, the council’s discussion turned pointed when it came to the building’s mechanical system. Earlier projections had hoped to cap HVAC work at $200,000, but a new mechanical engineering review suggested a more comprehensive fix could cost about $375,000.
Mayor Andrew Mullin and Council Member Ken Sorensen voiced serious reservations about proceeding with the remodel without fully addressing the source of moisture buildup and climate control issues that have plagued the facility for years. Both cautioned against what Mullin described as “another band-aid approach,” urging the city to invest in a long-term solution rather than temporary patchwork as has been done over the life of the building.
Council members agreed the issue warranted additional technical review and a potential rebid based on the mechanical engineer’s recommendation. The consensus was to refine the specifications before authorizing any construction contracts, ensuring that the renovation not only updates the interior but also stabilizes the building’s systems for the future. The council agreed that the HVAC and remodel must be done at the same time.
While the HVAC questions added complexity, council members expressed enthusiasm for the refreshed look and layout planned for the restaurant. The remodel will introduce a modernized interior design, new booth seating, and updated tables and chairs, aiming to enhance comfort and preserve the Muni’s warm, community-oriented atmosphere.
Staff will bring updated project documentation and cost comparisons to upcoming meetings on October 12 and October 26, when the council is expected to consider formal bid authorization.
Since 1947, the Muni has been one of the few municipally operated bars in the state, with profits reinvested into Wayzata’s parks, events, and public spaces. Council members emphasized that this project represents not just a physical renovation, but a renewal of a community landmark that continues to define Wayzata’s civic identity.
The Wayzata City Council voted 3-1 on Tuesday to appoint former council member Dan Koch to fill the vacancy created by Jeff Parkhill’s recent resignation.
The council interviewed four candidates in the council workshop—Adam Elg, Dan Koch, Bonnie Schwalbe, and Charles Yancy—all of whom brought highly skilled and qualified backgrounds to the process. Claudio Hofstadter was unavailable due to travel.
Image courtesy Dan Koch.
Koch previously served on the council from 2016 to 2020 and has remained active in civic roles, including the city’s Housing and Redevelopment Authority, the Interfaith Outreach Finance Committee, and as treasurer of the Wayzata Conservancy Board. He also served as board chair of the Greater Wayzata Area Chamber of Commerce.
In his interview with the council, Koch laid out three top priorities for the city. “Number one, I think, is to hire a … long-term city manager. That’s extremely important as we look to the future”. He also underscored the importance of growth management: “Development and thoughtful development has always been an issue here … there’s a lot of different opportunities with the east side of Wayzata Boulevard.” Finally, Koch pointed to city finances. “There’s been a lot of growth, a lot of changes. It’s put some strains on the budget … and so you’re always trying to balance.”
Koch told the council that his prior experience brings consistency during a time of transition. “I hope that my experience of time speaks for itself. You know what you’re getting. There’s not a lot of surprises.”
He added that he has not yet decided whether to seek a full term once the seat is up for election, noting that family circumstances will guide that decision.
Koch will serve out the remainder of Parkhill’s term, which runs through the end of 2026.
The Wayzata City Council narrowly approved a controversial variance request Tuesday evening, voting 3-2 to grant a shoreland setback variance at 547 Harrington Road, a peninsula property on Browns Bay owned by Dick and Elaine Swanson.
The action, adopted under Resolution 35-2025, reduces the required setback from Lake Minnetonka from 260.5 feet to 108 feet—a variance of 152.5 feet. While no redevelopment plans are on file, the variance establishes a larger buildable area should a future owner demolish the existing home and construct a new residence.
Mayor Andrew Mullin and Councilmembers Jeff Parkhill and Ken Sorensen supported the request, while Alex Plechash and Molly MacDonald opposed it. The applicant, represented by Kyle Hunt, argued the lot’s unusual shape, narrow width, topography, and position on a sharp bend of the shoreline created “practical difficulties” under city code.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 18 and later recommended approval of the request, subject to conditions. Those included a requirement that a shoreland impact plan be submitted with any future building permit, and that certain non-buildable wedge areas offered by the applicant be permanently recorded to protect neighboring sight lines.
Swansons Seek Variance to Preserve Future Use of Property
Property owners Dick and Elaine Swanson, who have lived at 547 Harrington Road for decades, are preparing to sell their nearly century-old family home. To aid in that transition, the couple hired builder Kyle Hunt of Kyle Hunt Partners to act as a consultant in seeking a variance that would preserve the lot’s usability for future owners.
Hunt told the Council the application was not tied to a specific redevelopment plan, but rather to establishing a reasonable building envelope so the property could be marketed and eventually rebuilt. Without a variance, he explained, the lot’s pie-shaped layout and position on a sharp bend of Browns Bay—combined with the unusual 299-foot setback of the neighboring Leavenworth home to the north—would push most of the buildable area toward Harrington Road, leaving the site effectively unbuildable.
Image source: Swanson narrative.
City code required a 260.5-foot shoreline setback at the site, yet the existing home sits just 91.9 feet from the water. The variance reduces that requirement by 152.5 feet, establishing a new setback line of 108 feet. That would still move any future home about 16 feet farther from the lake than the current structure.
To address concerns from neighbors, the Swansons also offered to record non-buildable “red triangle” areas on the lot to preserve lake views from adjacent homes.
Red triangles, courtesy of the Swansons.
As Hunt explained in his presentation to council: “The reason why we introduced the idea of the red triangles was to honor and take into consideration the neighboring properties when you look through the lens of sight lines from their structures to the lake and from the interior of their homes looking lakeside or lake setback side. In both cases, we’ve tried to look at that triangulation and offered that under free will.”
Public Hearing Brings Sharp Divide on Shoreline Impact
Neighbors Tracy and Dan Cosentino of 549 Harrington Road opposed the request. Their attorney, Jack Perry, urged the Council to deny the variance, warning it would invite litigation and stall any redevelopment of 547 Harrington Road.
“The reality is that 108 feet versus 175 feet is a major, major, major change — a major blockage of the lake for 549,” Perry said. “And 549 is going to [assert] rights. If you say yes, that will cause litigation. Litigation will hold this thing up for 12 months at a minimum, which no buyer is going to pay because of the setback until that’s resolved.”
Perry explained that his clients had worked with attorney Chris Pierson to develop an alternative method of measuring the setback, disregarding the unusually deep setback at 543 Harrington Road and instead using the next-nearest home to the north. That calculation produced a 175-foot shoreline setback and a 45-foot side yard setback, which the Cosentinos argued was “almost as close to the lake as possible” while still protecting their views.
In August 2025, Pierson also submitted a formal letter during the Planning Commission review, pressing for denial. “The Application does not satisfy the conditions for approval required … by Chapter 991,” Pierson wrote. “Granting the sought variance would severely adversely impact the shoreline and lake views of the Cosentinos. In addition, the Application is motivated solely by economic considerations … and granting the variance without construction and other required plans is likely to lead to problems the City should seek to avoid.” He urged commissioners to reject the request.
The Council also heard directly from Dan Cosentino, who said he was surprised to learn that the Swansons’ application sought a 108-foot setback “shaped kind of like a hexagon” without building plans, architectural drawings, or a shoreline impact assessment. Cosentino explained that he had retained Pierson and the architectural firm Mohagen Hansen to prepare 3D models showing how potential homes could affect his family’s views. Both concluded the variance would have an adverse impact.
In response, Cosentino said he directed Pierson to craft what he considered a fair compromise: a 175-foot shoreline setback with a 40-foot side yard, compared with the 188-foot setback of his own home. He described this as a “very generous variance proposal” aimed at avoiding conflict.
Not all neighbors opposed the request. Several letters of support were submitted, urging the Council to allow the variance.
Ted Bigos, a longtime property owner in the community, wrote that the application aligned with Wayzata’s residential character. “I am writing in support of the variance request for 547 Harrington Road. Based on my review, the proposed variance is both reasonable and consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood,” Bigos said.
Tom and Lindsay Pohlad also submitted a letter backing the request. They argued that the strict shoreline setback stems from rules dating back more than a century and would effectively prevent any new home from being built on the site today. “The requested variance, as we understand it, does not impact views of neighboring properties, and should be considered for approval,” they wrote.
David Erickson, a neighbor on Harrington Road, described the proposal as fair and forward-looking. “The proposed variance by the owners of 547 Harrington Road, as requested, is more than generous to existing neighbors and appears to solve the problems created by what may now be an outdated practice given the circumstances at the site. As neighbors on Harrington Road, we favor City approval,” Erickson wrote.
Anne Johnson, another Harrington Road resident, called the request both reasonable and appropriate for the site. “As a resident of Harrington Road, I can confirm that the variance requested regarding 547 Harrington Road is very reasonable and does not impact any neighbors. I am familiar with the property and also believe that the existing setback no longer makes any sense due to the site’s topography,” Johnson wrote.
From just down the street, James E. Johnson and Lucy Rosenberry Jones expressed their backing for the application. “We live at 562 Harrington Road and fully support the Swanson’s request for a variance,” they wrote.
Hans and Carolyn Hagen, neighbors on Harrington Road, urged the Council not only to approve the variance but to make it permanent. “As neighborhood residents, we support the Wayzata Planning Commission resolution granting the variance to the shoreline setback requested by the owner of Tract B, the Swanson family,” they wrote. The Hagens emphasized that the Swansons’ proposed setback and view corridor matched existing conditions established by adjacent homes to the north and south, and argued that the family would face “an unusual hardship” if the variance were denied.
John Nolan, who lives nearby on Harrington Road, said he carefully reviewed the Swansons’ application before weighing in. “After reviewing their request, I feel the request is reasonable, appropriate and meets both the spirit and the technical requirements for variance relief for all the reasons expressed in their variance application. I am in support of the city approving this request,” Nolan wrote.
Carole Hunter added her voice in favor of the application. “Hello – we are fine with the variance request for the Swansons,” she wrote.
Joann W. Leavenworth, whose family home at 543 Harrington Road sits immediately north of the Swansons, pointed to the site’s natural challenges. “Because of the topography of this property, the existing 1920s house is located where it is. It would not meet the current ‘lakeshore set back’ code. Please take this into consideration … One look and the situation would be very apparent to you,” Leavenworth wrote.
Council Discussion
Councilmember Alex Plechash gave a detailed critique of the application, saying he recognized the property’s unique challenges but felt the requested relief went too far. “The fact that the residence to the north was built so far back creates a setback requirement that is skewed and untenable in my opinion. I think everyone agrees on that … As it is, an appropriately sized house would be unbuildable within the constraints delineated and begs for a variance,” he said.
Even so, Plechash argued the proposal was “granting a variance in a vacuum” without construction plans and could set a troubling precedent. He said the request would still adversely affect views from 549 Harrington Road and was not in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. “The letter of the law on a setback requirement for this property is draconian, but the requested variance goes too far, I think … The bottom line is that for all the reasons stated, I will be voting to deny the variance tonight.”
Councilmember Molly MacDonald echoed many of Plechash’s concerns, while adding that the city’s focus on preservation was being overlooked. “Our comp plan does value a diverse housing stock and neighborhood charm … maybe someone would appreciate a beautiful 100-year-old well-built home to not be just thrown away,” she said. MacDonald agreed a variance was needed but felt the Swansons’ request went too far. She also questioned claims that the proposal would preserve trees and concluded it would negatively affect shoreline views. “With all of that said, I will not be voting to support this variance request,” she said.
Councilmember Ken Sorensen said he saw strong arguments on both sides but ultimately leaned toward approval. He noted the property’s unusual topography and shoreline bend created genuine practical difficulties. Sorensen said that while a home built at 108 feet might be partially visible from 549 Harrington Road, “to me, [that’s] not adverse, not significant,” especially given that mature trees already obscure the shoreline from that vantage point.
He also pointed out that pushing construction farther back would force a new house into steep ravines and heavily wooded areas, creating other challenges. Reviewing the variance standards, Sorensen concluded the request was in harmony with the ordinance and comprehensive plan, and not driven solely by economics. He added that the Council should not base its decision on litigation threats. “I’m inclined to approve this variance,” he said.
Councilmember Jeff Parkhill acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, noting that both the Swansons and the Cosentinos had strong arguments. He said the property’s topography created an “insurmountable burden” under the code, making a variance necessary. Parkhill praised the Swansons’ approach of shaping the building envelope with “red triangles” to protect views, calling it considerate.
After visiting both homes, he concluded any obstruction to 549 Harrington’s lake view would be minor and not significantly adverse. “There may be minor and inconvenient and distant view obstructions of the lake, but not something that I believe to have a significant adverse effect,” he said. While he wished the neighbors had reached a compromise privately, Parkhill stated he was inclined to support the variance as a reasonable solution to a difficult situation.
Mayor Andrew Mullin said the Council’s role was not to redraw a different setback line but to decide on the application before them. He noted the challenge of weighing subjective criteria like views and neighborhood character alongside objective standards.
Mullin pointed to several factors that led him to support approval: the setback would remain more than 75 feet from the water, satisfying the base ordinance; the Planning Commission had found no adverse impact on shoreline or lake views; and a shoreline impact plan would be required to address erosion and tree loss.
He also stressed that the property’s difficulties were unique and not created by the Swansons, and that economic considerations could not be the sole reason to grant or deny relief. “I’m a very pro property rights individual,” he said. “I’m leaning in support of this variance for all the reasons I’ve stated.”
In the end, the Council split 3–2, with Mayor Andrew Mullin, Jeff Parkhill, and Ken Sorensen voting in favor of the variance, while Alex Plechash and Molly MacDonald opposed. The decision allows Dick and Elaine Swanson to move forward with a shoreline setback of 108 feet at 547 Harrington Road, though any future redevelopment will still require a shoreline impact plan and compliance with all other city codes. The debate underscored the tension between preserving neighbor views, respecting property rights, and applying ordinances to unusual sites along Wayzata’s shoreline—questions the city is likely to face again as more historic lake homes come up for reinvention.
The Wayzata City Council voted 4-1 (MacDonald opposing) on September 23 to approve the preliminary plat for Ferndale Bluffs at 565 Ferndale Road West, reversing its April denial. In contrast to April’s decision, council members proceeded directly to the vote without any discussion.
Applicant Draycott DST has been working for years to subdivide its 11.67-acre parcel into three single-family lots with a new access road. The Planning Commission recommended approval in February by a 6-0 vote. But in April, the City Council rejected the request on a 3-2 vote, citing concerns about grading, tree removal, and the disruptive effect of a new public roadway.
That denial did not end the matter. Shortly after, the applicant filed suit against the city (Dray Trustee LLC v. City of Wayzata), arguing that the project met city code. While the lawsuit was pending, the Council adopted Ordinance 853, amending Wayzata’s subdivision code to allow lower-impact roadways in small subdivisions. The ordinance created new flexibility for narrower right-of-way, steeper grades, and private roadway options, provided state fire code is met.
With that ordinance in place, the project returned to the Council under Resolution 36-2025. The resolution grants preliminary plat approval, contingent on the applicant amending its plans to conform to the new roadway standards.
What was notable Tuesday night was not the outcome but the silence. Council members offered no discussion before voting to approve. The lack of debate stood in contrast to the hours of deliberation in earlier meetings, and it underscored what many observers saw as a legal reality: the applicant’s lawsuit may well have prevailed in court had the Council not reconsidered.
What’s the Difference Between a Preliminary and Final Plat?
Preliminary Plat
Concept-level approval showing how land will be divided and accessed.
Conditions can be attached that must be met before moving forward.
Approval allows the project to advance, but construction cannot begin.
Final Plat
Detailed engineering, grading, and utility plans completed.
Must comply with all conditions from preliminary approval.
Includes a binding development agreement with the city.
Only after final plat approval and recording can lots be sold or built upon.
Bottom Line:
The September 23 vote advances Ferndale Bluffs, but it is not the last word. The project must return to the Council for final plat approval before any development can proceed. Watch for the final plat to be approved in the future.
You must be logged in to post a comment.